tv [untitled] May 5, 2012 6:00am-6:30am PDT
that when we create a district, sidewalks, streets, pedestrian ball outs are not part of that destroyed unless they are spies of a call out as character defining. we have had situations where we wanted to make pedestrian safety improvements and because something runs through a district court judges on the district, there are additional delays and expenses in evaluating that as part of the historic district even if the sidewalk is not in any way character divining. pedestrian safety should be one of the top policy goals of the city. in addition, it will require that the planning commission and the historic preservation commission work together to craft a consistent set of local applications and an interpretation of the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. this version of article 10 and
11 will for the very first time make sure it applies to our historic districts. it has never been required legislation before in san francisco. it now will be. it will also recognize that the secretary of interior standards may not always have perfect applicability to our unique urban setting. we should have not only our own standards, but our own consistent standards and applications. and the planning commission will after approve them. i understand that some people would like doggerel only to be for the hpc. while it is appropriate for the hpc to have jurisdiction over certain projects, relating to the rules, that is where the planning board should be involved in order to take into account all public policies.
before i wind down, there has been some e-mail traffic and some insinuations that are completely incorrect in the last few days that there is something wrong with the process leading up to what we are considering today. there has been a fair amount of misinformation out there. we're out had 25 hearings at the -- the historic preservation commission supported many of my suggestions and did not agree with others. the planning commission unanimously supported this legislation with my amendments with one exception, that the planning commission asks for staff and my office to work together to rework the economic hardship provision, which we did. i then introduced to the legislation reflecting that
feedback at the board of supervisors on march 22, more than 30 days ago. and then last tuesday, after the city attorney had gone through and found a number of a typographical errors, for example, an upper case that should be a, something that should be hyphenated or not hyphenated and we change the long title to make it more reflective and accurate. i introduced substitute language last tuesday. for all of those typographical errors i could have walked into day and introduced all of those changes today and adopted them with no continuant since it was the first time anyone saw it. instead, i suggested is substitutions are that when it is put out next thursday it has. accurate version of the legislation. there's no continuance required today. there were no substantive
changes made in the substitute legislation offered on tuesday. i request that the committee for this with a positive recommendation to the full board. supervisor olague, which like to comment? >> i appreciate all of your work over the years. it is a long time since prop. j. was passed by the voters. it is just a matter of bringing those changes about to articles 10 and 11. i'm anxious to hear from the public and happy to see that we are finally after the all of these years, finally seeing something put in place. i'm very excited about this month. >> thanks. with that said, we have a presentation from the planning department and then followed by
the mayor's office. >> good afternoon. i'm with the planning department. i'm very pleased to be your after a very long haul getting to this point. it was stated three and a half years ago that the proposition j was created, but not implemented until now. i was going to go through some quick background items. before i do that, i want to say that i know there is a lot of concern about preservation issues and the affects on growth or development in the city and the directs on homeowners. i want to emphasize that the department believes strongly that there is absolutely no
conflict between a robust city and a detention program. i think this is where the city will want to invest. to be sure, i think we need to make some changes to the process on a project by project basis. we have been working on some reforms, but ultimately, i think we can have our cake and eat it, too. we can have a robust historic district and a city that is livable. and one that people want to invest in. the planning commission initiated changes to articles 10 and 11 in july of 2010. since then, there have been 25 public hearings i both commissions, and in some timbre of last year, a supervisor weiner submitted additional statements for the commission to consider. there has been an enormous amount of progress to get everyone closer to agreement
than where we were a year ago. i'm really grateful for that. in february, both commissions voted to approve the amendment and there are very few places where the two commissions disagree. the amendments are in compliance with the certified local government programmatic agreement, which is very important because it allows a great deal of independence for federally funded projects. i know that is important for the mayor's office. before i turn it over to tim frisz, the presentation coordinator, i want to thank all of the hard work on this. hon-- and i want to thank the sf that worked on this.
they have worked very hard on this. and as the director of the apartment, i'm glad we can get to the point where the staff no longer has to spend time rewriting the regulations, but actually can help. this is of huge importance and it really reflects the importance of these articles to the city. thank you. >> i have put up on the banister, a number of copies of the letter for the state circulation office, as well as the clarifying amendment that i described earlier so that folks can see it. >> may i also have the presentation?
good afternoon, supervisors. tim prius on behalf of the planning department. we have already brought into compliance articles 10 and 11 of prop j. it is also important to mention that it is 45 years since oracle 10 was adopted and nearly 30 years as an article of and was adopted. the original intention of these amendments was to incorporate the charter into the planning code. but as the public process evolves, it became more evident that we needed to align with current reserve -- preservation historic best practices.
i would like to dive right into an overview of the amendments to articles 10 and 11. i will briefly go over the sections where they were debated at hearings. there were a number of amendments that were not debated or a outstanding questions that were not resolved through the process. to start with amendments to the landmark designation process, these begin in 10.04 0.1. it includes our stipulation that if a majority of property owners petitioned the hpc to start the process for the district, the hpc is required to hold a public
hearing on the request. this is the part of the amendment that supervisor weiner was just talking about. the amendment reflects the full process. however, the hpc did vote for-2 to strike this amendment to require a 50's -- 50% goal. the reason they were required in touch a high level of water per dissipation and limitation on non english household. they voted unanimously to approve and maintain his amendment, stating that all -- although 50% participation was a lofty goal, it was desirable. regarding entitlement, once a
property is designated, certain types of work will require a certain type of search of a gift of appropriateness. that is prior to any building permit or any other entitlement. the requirements for this process begin in section 10.06 on page 19. these are based directly on the charter. at one part of the process but i would like to point out to you is that the planning commission has the authority to modify a certificate of appropriateness within a district when process requires administrative review. there is another process also already in place and we will be codifying it. it will be an effective tool in streamlining the apartments and the age -- hpc review. the standards for review of certificate of appropriateness
are located in 10.06b on page 29. this introduces the secretary of the interior standards to article 10. the secretary of interior standards are in nationally accepted a framework that are designed to promote responsible preservation practices. they must comply with the standards if a project pertains to an individual landmark for a contributor within a landmark district. the language was crafted to allow flexibility in applying the standards to allow flexibility and vacant lots with an unmarked districts. many have developed local guidelines based on the standards and use of amendments provided in the mechanism to be used. regarding vietnam is, the hpc voted to support the review. however they did strike to --
wrote to strike aspects of the amendment. a 180-day clock was implemented to make sure that the scheduled is followed. in sections 10.06g and h, and beginning on page 30, these are not an exemption from the c of a process. what the exemption does provide is the flexibility and based on certain criteria. again, the tendency is to allow
for flexibility. both. hpv hpc and the planning commission realized they needed more study to allow for these exemptions. the hpc voted to strike him an antelope it was finished. it the department worked with the supervisor in the -- and the new language before you is a result of those efforts. we believe it is intended to provide a much clearer framework for qualifying projects. just to move on to article 11. articles 11th differs from article 10 in that is used to regulate the architecturally significantly different
buildings within the downtown zoning district. it is also an important tool for implementing the policies of the downtown plan. most amendments were similar to those proposed in article 10. this is a brief summary on the slides and those amendments. i will not reiterate their concerns, or their agreement regarding the secretary of interior standards notices, etc.. however, there was notion the h pc joe's to revise, and that is regarding demolition. the hpc voted unanimously to strike the part of the sentence that i underline here on the strike -- the slide. they felt the situation was vague and would be difficult to quantify a public hearing.
this concludes my presentation. as everyone has stated, the department works very hard with both the commission and the public and supervisors. over two years on this chapter of the code. thank you for listening. >> thank you for all of your incredible work over the years. if there are no questions from planning staff, the office of housing,, alt. >> good afternoon. i am the director of housing. our department had appeared at one of those previous 25 urine is many months ago. -- 25 hearings many months ago.
it was of prime importance to us that we maintain our clg status. we value our relationship with the office. if we are happy to see that the language of these amendments maintain our status. we are especially pleased to see you in ridge -- language that recognizes the flexibility necessary as report those processes. it is a long and sometimes laborious process. we are happy to see the final results. we support the legislation if we feel it will -- will serve our
>> i am here for a bright line. we strongly support what is here today and ask you to put it forward. i was looking to hear some very important things, which is including a vote for prop. 0 tenants. if -- a vote for property tenants. axiomatic in the proposition is safeguards, safeguards for low- income communities, communities of color, committees with limitations. i have actually had to litigate cases in which historic preservation if you do not have the right safeguards, there is
no protection from the legislation. . olague had raised the question a number of years ago. and it was a joy to work with you and get this approved. but you have to of knowledge that there is a propensity with that committees safeguards -- that community posey said guard. low-income homeowners cannot keep up with the preservation joneses. it is important to have historic preservation the part of what we're doing as san francisco, but we talk about new districts, new landmarks, it makes the tenants and economic hardship waiver very important. i do not think any more changes need to happen. it has been changed a lot, but
just making sure that the affordable housing peace is dialed in, sounds good to me. let's go forward. >> thank you. and if commissioner martin as would line up, so we can move forward with this. >> i am on the preservation commission. the president could not be here this afternoon, so i am representing him as well. i am -- i appreciate the work that supervisor weiner has done on this. my commission has had the most exhaustive issues with the public. i think the main issue is the economic hardship thing. i think this is a much better version than what we had. this will apply to different
districts. it was created because of a certain type of development that they thought was stylistically inappropriate and very unattractive stucco boxes were being billed to the district. now there will be an exemption for people to build the same unattractive boxes in the same districts. i think more thought has to be given to this on a district by district basis. the vagueness of what it means that safeguard standards will still be protected, i think that is too vague. i think it needs more work. on that one, and on the secretary standards, i do not think that the planning commission has charter purview
over interpreting the standards, anymore than my commission has the right to china in on the service in transportation. it is simply beyond their expertise. my commission desk -- i'm going to continue. and credit commissioner camacho will ask you to continue. -- and commissioner -- >> commissioner, i will ask you to continue. >> ok, one issue is, who was going to pay? if someone comes to the commission asking for something in a district, the expense is going to be -- i know how things work. it will not be inexpensive to conduct this. it will be an additional burden on to property owners if they
want to be in a district. the implication that it is a vote kind of bothers me because it will raise the of petitions to the public better it is a boat and it matters. some of these districts may be companies, corporations. their expectation is that it will be a vote, too. i do not think you can count on them to have the best interest of san francisco in mind. they are not altruistic. they are there to make money. i think that's great, but it is qualitatively district talk about the commercial the street and an -- then it is to talk about the other.
i think we've made progress. >> thank you. >> i'm on the board of directors. i did not attend all of the hearings, but many of them. i found the degree of consensus on this draft quite astounding. where things started a few years ago, very polarized. there were a small number of potential conflicts agreed to by all parties. i also agree with director rand that we can have preservation and housing in this city.
i think we have done a good job of drafting a good balance of the big issues and the state policy. i think the this agreement that you are hearing -- the disagreements you are hearing today are small. i would urge you to reject these arguments and keep the balance. it for example, the planning commission having involvement in the policy question, such as the standards, is an improper whereabouts of those policies. the draft before you that does not make an imposition to the secretary's standards mandatory for contributory sites is also an important way to balance
these amendments. i urge you to support the draft before you. one suggestion on the new amendment that came in today regarding obtaining a vote or feedbox -- feedback from districts. there are 500 tenants in one building in my area. i do not think it is practical to survey. it makes sense in residential areas and landmark districts, but in article 10, you might want to think that through for article 11. >> maybe you know better than i do in terms of how that is defined, the word occupant. i think most people would agree that residential -- and on >> as
i read it, it could be every occupant. it could be thousands and thousands of occupants. >> ok, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the deputy director of spur. i've never been part of a quartet, so this is pretty exciting for me. i'm here to support the version of article 10 and 11 that have been introduced by supervisors. i'm very pleased to stand before you i do not think i attended all 25 hearings, but it was pretty close. the version before you represent a very hig